Showing posts with label nuclear war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear war. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Threads and Why Post-Apocalyptic Art Is Not A Deterrent To An Apocalypse

 


I watch a lot of post-apocalyptic television series and movies.  In fact, I watch so much of it that Netflix categorizes my favorite genre as “Extreme Survival In Twisted Worlds”.  That is an actual category.  I have also read the survivalist literature and literature on extreme survival shelters. You can call a company and have one delivered that they will sink in your back yard.  Some include sophisticated features like cooling your shelter exhaust so it cannot be picked up by infrared detectors.  If you have several million dollars to spend you can get a deluxe survival condo located in an old missile silo.  That assumes that you have adequate warning of the impending apocalypse to travel there. The standard post-apocalyptic fiction seems to assume that there will be significant numbers of survivors, that they will be well prepared, and the only worries will be ruthless leaders and defending yourself and your resources from them. The only exception I can think of is the movie version of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, that is focused on the grim post-apocalyptic existence of a man and his son. But even in that story there was a relatively happy ending.

A week ago, I was watching clips from Jason Pargin.  He is an author who offers insightful sociocultural commentary on various topics.  The one I saw was about this topic in general. He observed that most post-apocalyptic movies and television series are inhabited by attractive people who don’t seem to be in that much distress.  They all seem to have survival skills and are getting along famously.  The only exception seems to be when they need to use their survival skills in physical confrontations with roving hordes of zombies or rival camps trying to steal their food or personnel.  Even then they prevail.  He suggested the 1985 film Threads as a counterpoint.  The movie is about a nuclear attack on the United Kingdom.  His point was that this was probably a much more accurate depiction of post-apocalyptic survival and it is grim – even decades after the event.  

On that recommendation I was able to find the movie on a streaming service and watched it from beginning to end.  It starts off in a couple of cities in the UK, and we focus on a few familiar people and their routine.  There is background news that the US has started some kind of military operation in Iraq and Russia is starting to respond.  There are some antiwar protests about it in the UK.  Eventually it escalates to a single nuclear device attack from Russia responded to by a single nuclear weapon from the US.  Tensions increase and eventually a high-altitude nuclear weapon is exploded over the UK as an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that knocks out communication. That is followed by nuclear attacks on major cities.  We witness the mushroom cloud, anxiety, and panic.  There are a massive number of deaths from the initial blast and burn injuries.  There are an equal number of people exposed to radiation and injuries that nobody can treat.  There are no medical systems left that can treat or triage the massive number of injured.  That should be intuitive for anyone who lived through the COVID epidemic because at one point the mass casualty systems in many countries were overwhelmed by that respiratory infection.  By comparison a nuclear attack in any major city would produce hundreds of thousands to millions of injuries.  Most of these people would die without care. 

Removal of dead bodies was another problem.  There was insufficient manpower and fuel left to bury or burn them. There were scenes of bodies everywhere.  They were burned from radiation and decomposing.  Sanitation was a problem with no clean water, sewage, or garbage disposal.  Rats and dogs were everywhere spreading contamination and disease.  People had to seek shelter in partially demolished buildings that could not protect them from radioactive dust.  In the days following the blast more people came down with and died from radiation poisoning.  At one point the public officials who were supposed to be managing the disaster just gave up.  The landscape was littered with survivors wearing dirty clothing, shivering in the cold, with nothing to eat or drink.  Diseases that has been gone for centuries due to improved sanitation were back and killing survivors.

The confrontations depicted in the usual post-apocalyptic movies were still there but on a much smaller scale.  It was no longer village versus village. It was two people against one and all three significantly debilitated.  As the nuclear winter set in from debris blown into the atmosphere – there was some cooperation manually harvesting crops that were still in the ground.  It was a slow process due to the poor physical health of the survivors, a lack of food, and the lack of operable farm equipment.  Once those sparse crops were harvested there was not much hope for a planting season.

Threads does highlights at several intervals after the nuclear attack. About 20 years after the attack, they estimate that there are about 1.0 - 1.5 million people left in the UK or about the number that were there in Medieval times.  In 1985, there were 56.6 million people in the UK.

Threads accurately depicts the catastrophic changes that are likely to occur after a nuclear war.  The imagery in the film is much grimmer than I am describing in this essay. I found the final scene so gruesome that I am not mentioning it here. I don’t think it is necessarily important to watch it all.  It does not take much imagination to think about what will happen if suddenly the power goes out, municipal safe water systems shut down, and you no longer have a safe food supply or medical care.  More importantly – you no longer have the hope that any of these systems will ever be restored.  One of my concerns has always been – what happens to the people who are taking life saving medication every day for chronic problems.  What happens to the millions on CPAP for sleep apnea? Most of them will encounter very serious problems in the next 1-3 months and that assumes they were able to save their current supply of medicine. 

How does Threads compare to other films in this genre?  The closest approximation is probably The Day After a 1983 American movie that depicts similar levels of mayhem and destruction but alludes to the severity of the destruction at the end saying an actual attack would be much worse than what is depicted.  There is apparently is a 2025 film called Nuclear Winter that I cannot find anywhere.  There are several films that leave the results of a nuclear attack up to the imagination of the viewer.  Fail Safe is a classic film demonstrating the catastrophic consequences of mistakes with nuclear weapons but the viewer only experiences the anxiety and fear of the government and military officials.  The recent Kathyrn Bigelow film A House of Dynamite uses a similar approach while pointing out the folly of anti-missile systems.  There are scores of survival manuals available from government web sites that describe is detail what happens during a nuclear attack and what you need to protect yourself.  None of them say anything about what it will be like when all the services and infrastructure that you need every day to live is permanently gone. There are certainly glimpses of this from conventional weapons.  The devastation in Palestine is a recent example.  But even the horror of what happened in Palestine seems to be minimized and sanitized on a daily basis as if it can be argued away.

The scariest prospect of living in the 21st century is that there are no peace movements anymore.  The only realistic prevention strategy is to maintain the peace and international relationships and there are few people who talk realistically about that.  All the current world leaders seem poorly equipped for that task.  Many seem to adhere to the Athenian precedent from 415 BC when they ignored an appeal from the Island of Melos based on their neutrality.  Instead, they attacked and massacred all the men and enslaved the women and children.  In today’s world we see the dynamic of power over morality being played out on a regular basis.  A related issue is the people in power are old men with questionable values and motivations. They have no stake in the future and the immediate goals of many are self-enrichment and fictional legacies.  Many of them are convicted criminals or have been charged with war crimes.  Many clearly have no interest in averting a climate apocalypse that will amplify the power over morality dynamic that has been present since prehistoric times. That is hardly a group I would assemble to prevent nuclear war. It seems that modern man has very advanced destructive technology being managed by the same primitive brain.

A significant portion of the general populations of each country do not seem much better. Instead of recognizing the sanctity of the universal struggle for existence and all that involves they tolerate megalomaniacs and, in many cases, seem to worship them.  In the United States, billionaires and an impending trillionaire are all considered geniuses and given privileges (most notably lower taxation rates) that the average citizen does not have.  The media hangs on the predictions of this elite group as if they are accurate. While this group profits from taxpayer supported subsidies and contracts, many of the people paying the taxes can’t afford food, housing, or healthcare. In the US, the people and the Congress representing them seem powerless to change the recent more malignant course of power over morality. Much of that powerlessness comes from new trends in negating reality and science by politics and rhetoric.  It is easier to listen to an antivaxxer rant than contemplate a burned-up world with nothing left to sustain human life.  It is as if the zombie apocalypse has already happened and the people have become a slow-moving herd of the undead, watching their little screens while the world burns.  

None of this makes me very hopeful about the future. If you can deny that vaccines have been the single most significant mortality reducing medical achievement in history you can deny a nuclear winter with tens of millions of dead bodies littering the landscape.   

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


Graphic Credit:

Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APAimages, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Description: Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 29

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Damage_in_Gaza_Strip_during_the_October_2023_-_29.jpg

Creative Commons License CC B-Y SA 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported


Wednesday, October 29, 2025

A House of Dynamite


I watched this Kathryn Bigelow movie a couple of nights ago after anxiously waiting for it to hit Netflix.  It turns out that Bigelow and I are the same age and lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, and the era of public and private atomic bomb shelters – all based on the idea that you can survive a nuclear war.  As I have written on this blog in a couple of places – it was also my job in my early 20s to disassemble the bomb shelter in the basement of our public library.  Nobody ever gave me a reason – but in retrospect it was probably because planners realized that there would be no survivors.  I am not talking about dying in the blast or even surviving the radioactive fallout and fires.  I am talking about the millions of tons of smoke, soot, and dirt blown up into the atmosphere and the effects of that blocking sunlight.  The direct smoke and soot effects are expected to last for 5 years and the resulting greenhouse gases for a century (1).  There will be climate change and an inability to grow crops for a very long time.  That would mark the end of civilization probably within a few years.

There are differing opinions on what it would take to create a nuclear winter. Over the past 30 years several groups have estimated the environmental effects of numbers of nuclear weapons ranging from 15-100 kilotons of explosive force.  The simulations vary from a limited exchange to a large-scale exchange of several thousand nuclear weapons.

This movie is focused on the launch of a single missile from an unknown location and the people responsible for responding to that attack.  There is the suggestion that early warning systems may have been compromised by a cyberattack.  We see a cross section of military officials and civilians at Fort Greely Alaska, in the White House, and via telecommunications monitoring threats to the United States.  They detect a missile launch and initially think that it will splash down in the Sea of Japan.  They eventually see that it is on a suborbital trajectory and it will hit the continental United States.  Chicago is determined to be the target. 

The tension increases greatly when the staff involved realize that this is a nuclear attack on the United States.  There is some initial confidence that they can intercept the incoming missile with Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) anti-ballistic missiles. The GBIs are used to deploy an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) that is a kinetic energy weapon designed to seek out and destroy the ballistic missile by direct impact. In a tense dialogue between the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy National Security Adviser we learn that the success rate of the GBI system is only 61% and it cost $50 billion.  During these discussions Ft. Greely has 2 GBIs in the air and they both miss.

That leads to increased tension. The alert state is DEFCON 2 and none of the staff has been at that state in the past.  Everyone knows the gravity of the situation.  People are upset, tearful, and trying to contact their families.  A cabinet official jumps off the roof of the Pentagon.  One of the central figures calls her husband and tells him to put their child in the car and get out of town as quickly as possible.  Even though there is only one missile in the air headed for Chicago – the viewer knows only 20 minutes total have elapsed.  There is no adequate amount of time to evacuate most major metropolitan areas.

With the failed countermeasures we see the President in the final frames.  He is with his retaliatory strategy advisor – a Lieutenant Commander.  He has a large book of targets – all specified by certain codes.  The President is anxious and hyperventilating. He is contemplating the gravity of the situation – the human toll, not letting the perpetrator get away with it, what the American people will think of his response, the insanity of selecting military targets when he does not know who launched the missile, and the message it would send if the US does not respond.

This was a very good movie that I enjoyed a lot.  It was well written, directed and acted by some of my favorite actors. Most importantly it contains a solid message about nuclear war – don’t go there.  The anxiety, confusion, mayhem, and desperation portrayed as the product of a single missile launch may be the 21st century equivalent of that 1964 classic Fail Safe.

But it turns out there is more.  The Pentagon apparently released a memo disputing the low accuracy of the GBI anti-missile system.  I have not been able to access the memo but apparently it claims a 100% success rate in stopping incoming ballistic missiles. 

I was able to see an interview of Joseph Cirincione (2) – a defense consultant with experience all the way back to the Reagan era and the Star Wars initiative.  He said there have been a limited number of tests of the system but you could claim a 100% success rate if you looked at the last 4 tests.  If you look at the life of the program there have been 20 tests and only 11 or 55% were successful.  He pointed out the technical difficulties of trying to shoot down long-range missiles and said the system was more of a sieve than a protective dome and that it could not be counted on to plan a defense.  Further, the total investment in antiballistic missile technology has been $453 billion and that technology in the form of lasers, rockets, or the GBI/EKV will not be adequate for another 30 years.  He alluded to a study of the technology by the American Physical Society (3) but it was not clear that was his reference for the estimate.  When asked about the most significant nuclear threat to the US, Cirincione said it was Russia and that in an attack of a thousand ballistic missiles – the US would be able to “intercept 1 or 2.”  In the Pentagon versus movie accuracy, he rated it: “House of Dynamite 1 and Pentagon zero.”      

Where does this leave us?  Here are a few considerations.  First, if anyone was serious about waste, fraud, and abuse it is far more likely to be found in the Pentagon than in health and human services.  The $453B spent on several antiballistic missile systems to end up with one that is as effective as a “sieve” says it all. And apparently a new contract has been signed even though physicists are saying the technology will not be ready for another 30 years.  Second, the current system is a coin toss in terms of intercepting ballistic missiles from a rogue state.  In an all-out attack by a nuclear power it can possibly intercept a trivial number of missiles.  It makes no sense to advertise it any other way or pretend that the United States is “protected” against a long-range missile attack.  Third, we are right back where we started when nuclear non-proliferation was the order of the day.  Having all the nuclear weapons in the world is a lose-lose situation rather than a zero-sum game if all of humanity goes extinct during the attacks and the aftermath.  You don't even have to be in the game to lose.  If you are a hemisphere away the resulting climate change and ice age will kill you.   Fourth, rather than being focused on non-proliferation we currently have leaders who are bragging (4-7) about weapons systems.  Fifth, there is not even a tip of the cap to cosmopolitanism at this point.  Billions of people around the world work every day and strive to get home safely to their families every night.  In the meantime, we have a handful of old men with a limited stake in the future playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship – often for no reason other than playing the game.   

When exactly are world leaders really going to work in the interests of their people?  Nuclear war, nuclear winter, and the extinction of humans is the last thing any rational person wants.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Supplementary 1:  Precedents for holding your nuclear fire:  There was one brief allusion in the movie to a nuclear early warning that was ignored during the Cold War.  There were two – in both cases commanders from the USSR ignored in one case a radar error suggesting an attack by the USA and in the other a direct attack by the US Navy on a Soviet submarine.   This is interesting because the Soviets were typically considered war mongers by Americans at least that was the political hyperbole.  In fact, two of their commanders exercised good judgment under fire and probably prevented an all-out nuclear war.   

Supplementary 2: Kathryn Bigelow responded to Pentagon criticism of the movie about the accuracy of the Ground Based Interceptor missiles (8).  She described the film as realistic and authentic. In The Guardian version of this story a nuclear physicist said that the scenario was “about as easy as they come.”  That same article said the US has 44 GBICs in Alaska and California and has contracted for a new system for $13.3 billion.  Bigelow said she hopes the film will create discussion and cultural change that may produce a more rational approach to the problem - like arms reduction.  Kathryn Bigelow has produced art with a beneficial message to the American people.  It is a message that nobody else is sending.  She deserves credit for this work rather than criticism.  

Supplementary 3:  The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists published a brief essay on what the immediate consequences of a nuclear explosion in Chicago would look like:

Jaworek P, Williams I.  The “House of Dynamite” sequel you didn’t know you needed. October 31, 2025  https://thebulletin.org/2025/10/the-house-of-dynamite-sequel-you-didnt-know-you-needed/


References:

1:  Toon OB, Robock A, Turco RP. Environmental consequences of nuclear war. Physics Today. 2008 Dec 1;61(12):37-42.  https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ToonRobockTurcoPhysicsToday.pdf

2:  Cirincione J.  TMZ Live October 28, 2025  Link to video

3:  American Physical Society.  Strategic ballistic missile defense. Challenges to defending the U.S.  March 3, 2025  Links to 3 different reports

4:  Wittner LS.  Nuclear arms race intensified during Trump’s presidency.  The Hill. July 5, 2024  https://thehill.com/opinion/4755721-trump-nuclear-arms-race/

5:  Cancian MF, Park CH. Trump Moves “Nuclear” Subs: Negotiating Tactic or Escalatory Gamble?  August 6, 2025.  https://www.csis.org/analysis/trump-moves-nuclear-subs-negotiating-tactic-or-escalatory-gamble

6:  Megerian C.  Putin boasts about new nuclear-powered missile as he digs in over Russia’s demands on Ukraine.  October 27, 2025.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-boasts-about-new-nuclear-powered-missile-as-he-digs-in-over-russias-demands-on-ukraine

7:  Associated Press.  Trump suggests the U.S. will resume testing nuclear weapons.  NPR October 30, 2025.  https://www.npr.org/2025/10/30/g-s1-95725/trump-testing-nuclear-weapons  

Historical note:  The US had not tested a nuclear warhead since 1992.  Many experts agree it is unnecessary and there is a nuclear test ban treaty. 

8:  Shoard C, Pulver A.  Kathryn Bigelow responds to Pentagon criticism of A House of Dynamite: ‘I just state the truth’.  The Guardian October 29, 2025  https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/oct/29/kathryn-bigelow--pentagon-house-of-dynamite-netflix